Storytime Campout

As I came into the office today, I noticed that the After-School Academy window that is usually brightly lit up like this:



was very dark, as if no one was there. Though there were no lights, it seemed darker than usual.

Perplexed...and, I admit, a little concerned that the teachers weren't doing their job...I started to walk in.

As I opened the door, little voices started chattering, "Someone's coming in!" and one of the dark black curtains hanging from the ceiling, encircling the kids, slightly opened so the kids could see their intruder.

"It's Ms. Janet!" they exclaimed. And quickly started telling me, "We're having a campout!"

Indeed, it was very dark...like a campout. And I looked down to see their "camp fire" in the middle of the circle (baby carrots on a piece of white tissue paper with a flashlight underneath to make it glow).

The kids had read their morning story, Bear Snores On, and were role playing and learning about kindness.







Shines go out to Nazareth, their teacher for the day, who stepped in for their regular teachers. I'm glad I walked in when I did. Sometimes it's the little events that help me realize how much the kids are learning and how much the teachers (many of them high school students...and Nazareth, a former student herself) are teaching.

Thanks, everyone!

The Obamas: Setting a new standard of "values"

Who created the rulebook that says if you make more money or if you hold a high position, you have to act differently?

For some reason, I think we have been convinced that if we make more money, we should spend more money, be in a certain neighborhood, and have certain friends. Think about it. How many people who grew up in poverty, went to college, and became highly successful, moved back to live in the same community where they grew up? On the other hand, how many went of and became successful, got a big house in a nice area, began buying more expensive clothes, and spending more money in the unspoken name of "prestige"?

Why does having money or having a higher position dictate that we must remove ourselves or change our lifestyle?

So when I read about Michelle Obama spending her first few days in the White House meeting with the entire staff and getting to know them, I couldn't help but be further impressed. The article went on to talk about the Obamas' plan to keep their daughters as down-to-earth as possible--no nanny...the kids pick up after themselves...and President and Mrs. Obama still plan to attend parent meetings at the school.

I've read the critics who say the Obama's are "wooing" the press. But, in all of my adult life, I have never heard of a president or presidential family who was so intentional about being inclusive...about ensuring that the people who are traditionally at the bottom (...literally...they are in the basement of the White House) are valued. That's so refreshing.

It's refreshing to think that the message coming from the White House is inclusivity, valuing all people, and reprimanding those who spend our stimulus tax dollars on lavish jets and bonuses rather than, "Spend! Spend! Spend!" It's a message in values for our country.

Life lessons from Tim Russert

I believe everyone deserves to find something they're good at.

Tim Russert was someone I watched every Sunday morning. Though I find politics very interesting, some political discussions are dry. Not Tim Russert. He was interesting--He brought together important people...He challenged...He laughed.

As I watched Meet the Press after Tim Russert passed, the heartfelt comments moved me.

Evidently, Russert had some other options that could have launched his career into a more prestigious and visible political role. But Russert said he had found his calling. Instead of thinking of his Meet the Press role as "less than," his passion and drive shone through and launched him into a prestigious light that he probably never anticipated.

Tim Russert found what he was good at.

Sometimes other people have ideas of what would make us great. Sometimes we buy into their visions for us and think those visions are more important than what we currently enjoy. What matters is what makes us truly happy.

When we are doing something we enjoy, we become great...regardless of what the world thinks.

Campaign financing and Barack's decision

I admit, I was disappointed when I received the email from the Obama campaign that said Barack Obama had decided to opt out of the public funding. I suppose I don't want to hear that Barack is just like any other politician. I want him to be different. Yet, this felt very much like a political move.

Not too long ago, Obama advocated for a fair and equal system of funding and agreed to sit down with and work on equal terms with McCain. His email video, in my opinion, was a lame attempt to explain to his supporters that the system is broken and he is working to rise above it. Instead, it seemed like a typical politician's message to try to pull the wool over our eyes once he realized and had confidence that he could raise much more money using his own supporters and funding base.

Personally, I don't mind if people come to new understandings and "flip-flop." I actually applaud that because it tells me they are listening and learning instead of remaining unmoveable in their thoughts and ideas. However, what I don't like is when people agree with something until they find it's more politically/financially beneficial to believe something else. And that's what I felt like Obama did.

But allow me to challenge my own beliefs in a way that might be somewhat politically incorrect.

As I watched Bill Moyers preview an upcoming P.O.V. segment, Traces of the Trade, I was reminded of how much our country has benefited throughout the years, without remorse or apology, from our slave system. That wheel continues to turn and we continue to benefit even without the slave system currently in place.

Of course the wealth that accumulated over the years allowed people much clout. As we can still see today, wealthy people still run for office, sometimes funding their own campaign. And, let's be honest, few people of color have had the deep pockets and bottomless pit of economic resources to make their campaign viable.

Perhaps I am making concessions for a man who I really think would make a good president. Don't get me wrong. I'm still irritated that Barack seems to be going back on some of the things he was so adamant about. I'm also a little irritated that his campaign speakers are trying to convince us that *all* of his donors are small donors. I would much rather them tell the truth and say that 50% are small donors, but there are some big donors as well. I would like to think we can handle the truth...and I would like to think they would treat us as if we could.

On the other hand, I recognize that Barack Obama has a huge battle and long road ahead of him. His battle is fraught with race issues as well as so many of the other, usual issues a presidential candidate faces. So, I have to say if Barack, has the money and the following to do it, he should go ahead. A Black man with enough political clout, personality, and economic resources is unprecented. I can't fault him for wanting to use every resource he has earned along the way.

What is considered "immoral behavior?"

Our morality meter is broken. The actions that constitute immorality disturb me.

What is truly immoral?

Is it immoral for a mother to protest the Dixie Chicks by picketing outside their concert while holding her two-year old child and commanding him to shout an angry chant directed at the Dixie Chicks or for people to call in death threats (serious enough that the FBI became involved) because one of the Dixie Chicks voiced a negative opinion about the current administration and it's decision to go to war?

Apparently not. Those are not the stories in the news. Instead, it is the Dixie Chicks or people like them who are portrayed in such a negative light for not supporting our country and not supporting our troops...when really what they didn't (and don't) support was the decision to go to war.

Is it immoral for protesters to stand outside an abortion clinic and ridicule everyone who walks in and out of the clinic, yelling insults and derogatory statements and carrying despicable signs of dead fetuses in an attempt to belittle the people who walk in and out of the abortion clinic?

Apparently not. Instead, it's the woman who has gotten pregnant and struggled to figure out if having a child is right for her or the baby. It's her decision to have an abortion that is criticized, despite the fact that perhaps she realized that the father of her child might not be a good role model or that she might not be able to financially or educationally provide what the child needs. Maybe she just realized that she is not mature enough to have a child. Maybe she made a bad decision, but maybe she's trying to keep her bad decision from affecting yet another human being.

Is it immoral for people to camp out every weekend at the border with binoculars and guns to ensure that no one crosses--even if it means shooting or even killing people--to make sure people don't cross and invisible line and come into "our" country?

Or is it immoral for the people who hire the undocumented workers and underpay them (in cash) so that they can make bigger profits to keep for themselves?

Apparently not. Instead, it's the people in Mexico who recognize that they might be able to help their family out of poverty if they take a trip that often means leaving their immediate family behind so they can work at physically demanding and underpaying jobs to support their family.

Is it immoral for big corporations and companies to contract overseas with sweatshop labor that often employ small children and work kids and adults 17-20 hours a day for pennies because they say their profit margin is too small, yet the executives of the company are still making million dollar salaries?

Apparently not. We still buy the products. Wal-mart, Nike, and others are not feeling any pain. There is no outrage over this. Whatever other countries do and however they do or don't pay their employees is none of our business. We simply contract with them. We try to stay out of the way other countries run their business, right? (well...unless it negatively affects us...like Iraq...or Iran)

Is it immoral for a big company like ConAgra to pay a meat grinder $6.40/hour in 1977 and 29 years later, the same man at the same company only makes $13.25/hour? Is it immoral for the same company to pay their former chief executive $45 million during his 8 years at the company give him a $20 million retirement package despite the fact that the company's share prices fell, the company missed earnings targets, and underperformed its peers under his watch? http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10B15F83A540C7A8CDDAD0894DE404482

Apparently not. Instead, it's the people who ask for livable wages, adequate healthcare, and better schools and education systems for their children who are said to want something for nothing.

Something is wrong with our society when we focus on one type of immorality (mainly the types that affect the poor and people of color) and ignore the other (mainly the types that affect wealthy, white people).